Cited by 1,250Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: Effects of response conflict and trial type frequency

Open access
Nieuwenhuis, Sander, Yeung, Nick, van den Wildenberg, Wery, Ridderinkhof, K. Richard·2003·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Neuroimaging and computational modeling studies have led to the suggestion that response conflict monitoring by the anterior cingulate cortex plays a key role in cognitive control. For example, response conflict is high when a response must be withheld (no-go) in contexts in which there is a prepotent tendency to make an overt (go) response. An event-related brain potential (ERP) component, the N2, is more pronounced on no-go than on go trials and was previously thought to reflect the need to inhibit the go response. However, the N2 may instead reflect the high degree of response conflict on no-go trials. If so, an N2 should also be apparent when subjects make a go response in conditions in which no-go events are more common. To test this hypothesis, we collected high-density ERP data from subjects performing a go/no-go task, in which the relative frequency of go versus no-go stimuli was varied. Consistent with our hypothesis, an N2 was apparent on both go and no-go trials and showed the properties expected of an ERP measure of conflict detection on correct trials: (1) It was enhanced for low-frequency stimuli, irrespective of whether these stimuli were associated with generating or suppressing a response, and (2) it was localized to the anterior cingulate cortex. This suggests that previous conceptions of the no-go N2 as indexing response inhibition may be in need of revision. Instead, the results are consistent with the view that the N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict arising from competition between the execution and the inhibition of a single response.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/cabn.3.1.17

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioural and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and ac- tion (pp. 395-419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Heil, M., Osman, A., Wiegelmann,J., Rolke, B., & Hennighausen, E. (2000). N200 in the Eriksen-paradigm: Inhibitory executive pro- cesses? Journal of Psychophysiology, 14, 218-225.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Nieuwenhuis, Sander
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2003-03
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
17-26
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2114411261
Cited by
1,250
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 67
FWCI
14.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
anterior cingulate cortex, N2 component, go/no-go task, response conflict, response inhibition, cognitive control, event-related potentials, conflict monitoring, response competition
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Conflict, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Evoked Potentials, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Mental Processes, Models, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reference Values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review